justified himself against all the false charges which were brought against him, and proved, at some length, the validity of his ordination.*

During the above year, our learned divine was engaged in a public conference holden at Lambeth. The first day's conference, December 10th, was betwixt Archbishop Whitgift and the Bishop of Winchester, on the one part; and Mr. Travers and Dr. Thomas Sparke, on the other, in the presence of the Earl of Leicester, Lord Gray, and Sir Francis Walsingham. The subject of discussion was confined to those things in the Book of Common Prayer which appeared to require a reformation. The conference was opened by the following declaration made by the archbishop:-" My lord of Leicester having requested, for his own satisfaction, to hear what the ministers could reprove, and how their objections might be answered, I have granted his request. Let us then hear what things in the Book of Common Prayer you think ought to be mended. You now appear before me, not judicially, nor as called in question by authority, but by way of conference. You shall, there fore, be free (speaking in duty) to charge the book with those things in which it is faulty."

Though the conference is of considerable length, the substance of it will, no doubt, be gratifying to the inquisitive reader. Whitgift, therefore, having finished, Dr. Sparke replied as follows:-" We give most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God, and to these honourable persons, that after so many years, wherein our cause could never be admitted to an impartial hearing, it hath pleased God of his gracious goodness so to order things, that we now enjoy that equity and favour, before such honourable personages, as may be a worthy means with her most excellent majesty, of promoting a further reformation of such things as are needful: and that it is now lawful for us to declare freely, for the satisfaction of those in authority, what things ought to be reviewed and reformed in the public service of God. As the favourable issue depends on the blessing of God, I desire, before we proceed further, that we may seek his gracious direction and blessing." Then attempting to begin to pray, the archbishop interrupted him, saying, "You shall make no prayers here. You shall not turn this place into a conventicle."

The two chief points which these divines urged

* Strype's Whitgift, p. 173—176.

against the Book of Common Prayer, were, " Its appointing certain apocryphal writings to be read in public worship, in which were several errors and false doctrines, and omitting many parts of canonical scripture: and, the doctrine of the sacraments." Concerning the first, they observed, that to appoint various parts of the apocrypha to be read publicly in the church, and omitting many parts of the Old and New Testament, made the apocrypha equal, and even superior, to the canonical scriptures; to which the archbishop made the following reply:

Archbishop. The books called apocrypha, are, indeed, parts of the holy scripture. They have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be now read among us.

Travers. The title of holy scripture is that by which the Holy Ghost distinguisheth the canonical scriptures from the apocrypha, and all other writings. This appears from Romans i. And such are the holy scriptures alone, as were given by the inspiration of God. This appears from 2 Tim. iii., 2 Pet. i.

A. The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God; as were also whatsoever the heathens have written well.

T. In the general sense of the word inspiration, what you have said of the apocyrpha is true. For no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. But the question relates to such an inspiration as moved and governed the holy men of God, in reporting and setting down those things in which they could not possibly err; and in this sense, the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are holy, and given by the inspiration of God. Herein they widely differ from the apocrypha.

A. You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers.

T. If the apocrypha could not be charged with error, yet its authors were not so far directed by God, that they might not have erred; and it has not always had that credit in the church which you have represented. Jerome declareth that it was the opinion of the church, in his time, as well as his own opinion, that some things were fictitious.

A. Let us hear some of the errors in the apocrypha. Sparke. We mention Eccl. xlvi., where the writer, having commended Samuel for his numerous worthy deeds, addetli in the conclusion, that he also prophesied after he was dead. This is contrary to the sacred story, which declareth it not

to have been Samuel, but a spirit raised by the witch, assuming the appearance of Samuel.

Bishop. If it be no error in the canonical scripture calling that which was raised up Samuel; then it could be no error in Ecclesiasticus calling it Samuel.

T. In the holy story it is plain that the spirit is called Samuel, beause it appeared like him, as declared out of Peter Martyr; but in Ecclesiasticus it is quite the contrary. For the whole chapter is employed in commendation of the true Samuel, for his famous and worthy actions while he lived; and then, to finish the praise due to so good a man, it is added, that he also prophesied after his death. This, therefore, could not apply to a spirit assuming his likeness; but to Samuel himself, however contrary it is to sound gospel doctrine, and the true story of scripture.

Earl of Leicester. Is the chapter giving this account of Samuel one of those appointed by the Prayer Book to be read in public worship?

A. Yes, it is.

Lord Gray. What error will the people be in danger of, who hear this read, and believe it? And is it an error to think that witches have power to raise the bodies of the dead?

A. Whether they have or have not, such power is a question among the learned.

S. In Judith, chap. ix., the doings of Simeon and Levi are commended, which is directly contrary to Genesis xlix.; where Jacob utterly condemns what they did. There must, therefore, in such repugnancy against the canonical scriptures, necessarily be an error in the apocrypha.

B. Judith commends only the manner of the deed, and Jacob condemns only the deed itself.

T. Jacob condemned what they did, not only in substance, but in every circumstance, as wicked and abominable. It was murder committed in wilful opposition against the eternal law of God; and the circumstances under which it was committed, as well as the number who suffered, greatly increased the aggravation of their crime.

B. Comparing the words of Judith, where it is said, "God gave them the sword," with the case of Nebuchadnezzer, who is called the servant of God, they did not deserve to be condemned.

* Here the archbishop, in reply, read out of his note-book the opinion of Peter Martyr, who said, that the spirit in the sacred story was called Samuel, because it seemed to be Samuel.

T. The cases are very different. In the one, Simeon and Levi, being private men, rose up against the magistrates; but in the other, Nebuchadnezzer, coming to destroy Jerusalem, was their king, to whom they were tributary, and to whom they swore obedience. In the one case, they were sojourners in a strange country, and rose up and killed both the people and the magistrates of the country; but, in the other, the king Nebuchadnezzer only punished those who rebelled against him.

S. Private baptism appears, in several respects, not agreeable to the word of God. It is private, and performed by laymen, yea, even by women; and the doctrine it implies, even that children dying unbaptized are in danger of damnation, and that outward baptism saveth the child that is baptized.

A. The place is not of the substance of the ordinance. It has been administered privately in time of persecution, and may be again.

T. That is no part of the question. We are now speaking of baptism to be administered in time of peace.

A. The persons, in like manner, are not of the substance of baptism; and in time of persecution, as well as in some other cases, private men have baptized, and may do it again. As for the baptism of women, though I would not allow them to baptize, neither doth the book appoint them so to do; yet I will not deny their baptism to be lawful. I would rather have a child so baptized than die without baptism. Though I do not affirm that children dying without baptism, will certainly be lost; yet, because I should fear and doubt the safety of their state, I would have them baptized by a woman, rather than not at all. (Here the first day's conference closed.)

On December 12th they assembled again, when the lord treasurer and the archbishop of York were added to their number. When the company was assembled, Archbishop Whitgift rehearsed what had been discussed on the first day, and then ordered Mr. Travers and Dr. Sparke further to enumerate their objections. But the recapitulation being very partial and imperfect, Dr. Sparke made some amendment, by adding what his lordship had omitted. This being done, they proceeded as follows:

A. Ciprian and some other of the fathers vouch the apocrypha as part of the holy scripture.

* MS. Register, p. 502-308.

T. Some of the fathers having alleged the apocrypha to belong to the holy scriptures, is not so strong a proof that it does belong to them, as the total silence of Jesus Christ and his apostles is, that it does not.

Lord Treasurer. That is no good argument. You can never make a syllogism of that.

T. Whatsoever our Saviour and his apostles alleged not, (allowing that they alleged all the prophets,) is no part of the prophetical writings. But it is true that our Saviour and his apostles alleged all the prophetical writings, and yet never alleged any of the apocryphal. Therefore, the apocryphal writings are no part of the prophetical. All the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have foretold the days of Christ.

S. Romans, chap. iv., is so far mistranslated, that the meaning of the apostle is wholly perverted. For where the apostle saith, "Cometh this blessedness upon the circumcisian only, or upon the uncircumcisian also?" the book appointed to be used readeth the contrary: and Psalm cv., which in the original, and in all good translations, it is, "They were not disobedient to his word: but in the Book of Prayer it is, "They were not obedient," which is its very opposite.

A. There may be some ambiguity in the Hebrew word. This I cannot tell, having no knowledge of the language. You can tell.

T. and S. There is no ambiguity at all in the word.

A. In baptism there is nothing of the substance of that sacrament, but the element and the word. With regard to the place, you will allow, that in time of persecution it is not unlawful to baptize in private places.

T. The question applies to a peaceable state of the church, as that now enjoyed in the church of England.

A. In like manner the person is not of the substance of the sacrament; but at some times, and in some cases, laymen, yea, even women, may baptize. May not a christian baptize in time of persecution, or when living in the West Indies?

T. Your remarks are not pertinent. The question relates to a time of peace, and a christian country. But even in the cases you have supposed, it is not lawful for any one to minister the sacraments without some extraordinary call from God, or some ordinary call from the church. This appears from Hebrews v., where it is said, "No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."